Geen evolutie en ecolutie zonder revolutie!

Albert Einstein:

Twee dingen zijn oneindig: het universum en de menselijke domheid. Maar van het universum ben ik niet zeker.

zondag 16 februari 2020

Coronavirus tragedie misbruikt voor racisme en het zaaien van haat

Een flink aantal westerse reguliere mediaorganen wijzen meer en meer naar de Chinese overheid als schuldig voor de uitbraak van het Coronavirus en het ineffectief optreden tegen de verspreiding van het virus..... Dat laatste is al helemaal belachelijk als je ziet dat China hele steden, en bepaald geen kleine, op slot heeft gedaan..... Uiteraard is de Chinese overheid niet schuldig aan de verspreiding van het virus, immers dat zou ongelofelijk dom zijn, daar vooral China wordt getroffen en de economie deels is platgelegd, me dunkt bepaald geen zaak die je als regering wenst........

K.J. Noh heeft een uitgebreid artikel op CounterPunch geplaats (ik nam het over van Information Clearing House >> ICH), waarin hij op het besmeuren van de Chinese regering ingaat en waarbij hij in een aantal punten aantoont dat de reguliere media, zoals de New York Times (NYT), in feite anti-Chinese propaganda maken..... Zo wordt gezegd over degene die het eerst in de gaten had dat er iets goed mis was en dat deze een klokkenluider zou zijn, terwijl deze man, dr. Li Wenliang, bij het ontdekken van vreemde ziektegevallen contact zocht met 7 collega's...... Een klokkenluider zou dit doen als hij met zijn/haar hoofd tegen de muur loopt vanwege gemelde misstanden waar niets mee wordt gedaan, of een dergelijk zwaar misdrijf dat onmiddellijke actie nodig is om de bevolking te waarschuwen, echter daar was in dit geval geen sprake van.... (zie wat Noh daar verder over zegt in het artikel hieronder) Voorts stelt de NYT dat deze arts, dr. Li Wenliang werd gearresteerd, ook dat is niet waar, hij moest zich verantwoorden op een politiebureau en tekenen dat hij geen geruchten zou verspreiden (ook al daar hij totaal niet is gespecialiseerd in virusziekten.....). Daarna is dr. Wenliang direct weer aan het werk gegaan..... Op 7  febreuari jl. overleed dr. Wenliang helaas zelf aan het Coronavirus.......

Des te belangrijker is het schrijven van Noh, daar mensen met een Chinese achtergrond meer en meer worden uitgescholden en bespuugd op straat (ja, dit racisme vindt ook plaats in ons Nederland...), alsof zij het virus expres zouden verspreiden..... China heeft gezien al het gebeurde m.i. goed gereageerd, ook al is er veel misgegaan en het is maar zeer de vraag of een westers land beter had gereageerd..... Weet je nog dat wij de Q-koorts hadden en de CDA ministers Klink en Verburg weigerden de namen van besmette bedrijven vrij te geven, waardoor doden vielen en een fiks aantal mensen de rest van het leven chronisch ziek is....... Deze 2 ploerten werden daar NB voor geaaarschuwd door een GGD arts uit Brabant, echter ook dat veranderde het totaal onverantwoordelijke, wat zeg ik: moorddadige beleid van deze 2 schoften niet........ (ben nog steeds van mening dat Klink en Verburg moeten worden vervolgd voor moord en het toebrengen van ernstig letsel!)

Lees het artikel van Noh en zegt het voort, we hebben al veel te veel racisme en vormen van fascisme in de hedendaagse maatschappij, vervolging van mensen met een Chinese achtergrond is een schande van formaat!!

Overigens zijn er stemmen die stellen dat de VS wel erg veel baat heeft bij het Corona virus, daarover zie je onder het artikel een link naar een ander bericht op ICH.

How to Yellow-Cake a Tragedy - The NY Times Spreads the Virus of Hatred, Again

By K.J. Noh

In the end, the plague touched us all…it was not confined….breeding in a compost of greed and uselessness and murder…promising life and delivering death…[serving] as furnished rooms for ideology.”
Pete Hamill, liner notes to Blood on the Tracks

February 15, 2020 "Information Clearing House" -    The 2019 Novel Coronavirus, first detected late last year in the hub city of Wuhan, China is a rapidly-spreading viral disease, often characterized by a cluster of acute respiratory symptoms. The virulence of this outbreak has put most of China under a lockdown: over 50 million people have been quarantined in the immediate region; 40,000 people have been infected, and over 900–and counting–have died. Many neighboring Chinese cities also have restrictions on travel and movement to stem the tide of infection; and across the country, all of China is facing restrictions and hardship. In the face of this sudden and tragic crisis–and the extraordinary social distancing measures the Chinese government has taken to safeguard public health and prevent infection,–the western media has made a highly political choice on how to report about it.

Instead of voicing support or encouraging solidarity–“We are Wuhan”—western corporate media have chosen to go all out to criticize and demonize China, sparing no effort to recycle and rekindle ugly, racist, orientalist, and dehumanizing tropes, using any perceived misstep, pretext, and shortcoming to tar China and the Chinese. One virulent narrative is that this is deliberate Chinese bioweapon to reduce population, another narrative, no less toxic and virulent, alleges that the Chinese leadership, out of a “fear of political embarrassment”, suppressed free speech and silenced the flow of information “at critical moments”, “allowing the virus to gain a tenacious hold”, thus creating the conditions for a lethal epidemic that has led to the deaths of hundreds and the infection of thousands.

The NY Times takes the [yellow] cake for sowing this toxic, racist disinformation, alleging in numerous articles and opinion pieces of a “cover up”: that “China’s old habits put secrecy and order ahead of openly confronting the crisis”; that “they played down dangers to the public, leaving the city’s 11 million residents unaware that they should protect themselves”, and presenting this as proof dispositive that the Chinese system is fatally flawed. All this while reveling in and boosting on its website, unseemly schadenfreude that suppression of information and free speech has led to condign and expected catastrophe.

The most recent iteration of this propaganda concerns a Dr Li Wenliang, recently deceased. Dr Li spoke of the disease at an early moment in the outbreak (December 30th) to a group of colleagues. He was later reprimanded by the police for “spreading rumors”. After going back to work, he himself contracted the virus, and despite being young and seemingly healthy, he tragically passed away. Latching onto this unexpected fatality like a virus itself, the NY Times grafted onto his death, the “authoritarian suppression of the truth” meme, thus exploiting tragedy to circulate a political myth: that Dr. Li was a valiant, dissenting whistleblower who had “tried to sound a warning that a troubling cluster of…infections…could grow out of control”. In other words, he had tried to warn the public early on about the virus, but had been brutally silenced and suppressed.

In particular, the Times claims that Dr Li was arrested by the government, “in the middle of the night”, no less; and suggests that had he not been silenced, 100’s, perhaps thousands of lives would have been saved, and countless infections prevented. In other words, the Chinese communists, because of their obsession with political appearances, their mendacious secrecy, and totalitarian control, instigated a cover up that has had a nightmarish consequences for global health.

This disclosure would be truly extraordinary, heroic, award-meriting journalism. Except for one small problem: none of the assertions are supported by the facts, and none of the interpretations bear scrutiny.

In order to peddle this toxic canard, the NY Times–as it did with its gutter journalism justifying the Iraq War–has had to yellow-cake up a foul brew of innuendo, half-truths, misrepresentations, outright lies, spiked fiercely with stereotypes, racial hatred, and red-baiting, while torturing the English language, eliding logic, ignoring science, and shredding the credibility of the fourth estate–yet again.
These are the facts:

1. Not a whistle blower:
 
The NY Times suggests that Dr Li was a whistle blower, “sounding a warning”. But Dr. Li was not a whistle blower, by any usual definition of the word. He didn’t notify the Chinese CDC or any public health organ. He did not notify the hospital authorities. He did not warn the public of wrongdoing, danger, or cover up. What he did do is share information with 7 school colleagues on 12/30 on a private messaging group. (He also shared a photo of a confidential medical record). How that constitutes “whistle blowing” is not explained by the NY Times.

2. Fraudulent Timeline:

The NY Times claims that the sanctioning and silencing led to suppression of timely and important information–a cover up of a dangerous but necessary truth. This assertion is not borne out by the facts. The “whistle”–if we can call it that–had already been blown by others. For example, doctor, Zhang Jixian, the director of respiratory and critical care medicine at Hubei Provincial Hospital, had officially notified the hospital on December 27th of an unusual cluster of viral cases, and the hospital had notified the city’s’ disease control center. 

After further consultation on the 29th, the regional CDC was notified and had started full scale research and investigation. The government was already actively investigating and doing their due diligence with other cases long before the NY Times allegations (constructed as always from anonymous sources). Zhang herself, contrary to the suppression and punishment narrative, was recognized and commended by the government.

3. Wrong Claim:
 

The doctor had claimed it was SARS, a related, but different coronavirus. However, it was not SARS. Why is this important? Given the panic that spread during the prior 2003 SARS epidemic, spreading this incorrect information would be a understandable reason to try to restrict inaccurate, and possibly panic-inducing information.

4. No Evidence:
 

Well what’s in a name? SARS or no SARS, it was still dangerous, and shouldn’t have been suppressed, no?

In making its claims of cover up, the NY Times suggests that the authorities recognized and knew that the disease was dangerous, but covered it up anyway. This is far from the truth at the time: there was little clear evidence that this was a dangerous or severe epidemic at the time of the outbreak.

In particular:

a) there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission at that time (the first case happened two weeks later, on 1/14)
b) there had been no fatalities (the first fatality was 1/09/20, ten days later), and there were only a handful of cases.
c) even later, as more casualties started to appear, most of the casualties were older people with serious existing pathology or co-morbidity.

In other words, it was unclear how serious this was, and whether and how serious actions should be taken: commonsense tells us in winter, colds, flu and pneumonia are not uncommon; discerning a novel, serious outbreak is not a simple task. The mere fact that the Chinese authorities were able to identify and take action on this so rapidly is indicates how competent, effective, and conscientious many of them were.

5. No Expertise or Qualification:

The NY Times claims the “doctor tried to sound a warning”, but it’s important to note that Dr Li had no expertise in the subject matter, was not familiar with the situation, was not treating affected patients, and had no expertise to make any such claims: he was a ophthalmologist (not an epidemiologist, virologist, infectious disease specialist, internist, ICU specialist, or even a GP or X-ray/CT technician). There’s no proof that he was privy to any specialized insider information that was being covered up; and the hospital was already taking all known precautions with patients at the time.

6. Not arrested:

Dr Li was not arrested , as the NY Times claims. The doctor was called in, lightly reprimanded (talked to, and signed a document not to spread rumors) and went straight back to work. This begs the question, if a non-specialist (for example, a podiatrist) at a public General Hospital had claimed that there was an outbreak of infectious disease (for example, bubonic plague (and released HIPAA-protected documents (like Dr. Li did)), how credible is it that they would have escaped some sort of official sanction?

7. Understandable Reasons for Acting Methodically:

The government had reasonable, and defensible reasons to act prudently and methodically. While the jury is still out, and the timeline bears elaborating, there’s still little evidence that this was a deliberate attempt to “stifle criticism” and “silence” to avoid “embarrassment”. 
Based on the evidence available at the time, we can reasonably surmise that:

a) The authorities didn’t know how serious this was at the time—a reasonable assumption given the known evidence at the time.
b) The “nocebo” effect (negative placebo) is real–people can take any ambiguous symptoms (that are always present in the body) and think they are sick.
c) Panicked, mass hysterical responses are not uncommon, and themselves can constitute a public health hazard. Either of these effects, caused by premature or careless disclosure could have resulted in:
i) People thinking themselves sick

ii) People crowding hospitals, stretching resources, while spreading the infection faster, as well as preventing genuinely sick people from getting care (all at a time when public services are winding down)
iii) Mass exodus, spreading the infection outside of Wuhan much faster
iv) Hoarding & scarcity of masks and other supplies, vigilante quarantines, and other hysterical, dangerous, and unproductive behavior.

It’s important to note also that this was the period of the Spring Festival, the busiest and most important holiday of the year. While it’s easy to criticize the cautious, tentative responses in hindsight, It’s understandable that authorities might not want to take extreme measures if it was a false alarm.

8. Upfront Transparency:
 
The NY Times alleges “cover up” and “secrecy”: however, the Wuhan authorities publicized that the doctor had been sanctioned. In this way, they actually spread information about his “whistleblowing” and the fact of the disease symptoms. As a matter of fact, they have publicized all the people sanctioned for similar actions. This would seem to indicate that:

a) at the time, they genuinely believed they were taking correct actions–actions that would be justifiable and vindicated—and they did not know that this disease was as serious as it turned out to be (and it’s not clear how could they have known)
b) it’s unlikely they were trying to hide or cover up anything. If they had been trying to silence or cover up something, this incident would most likely have gone unannounced.

9. Not Ahead of the Government:

The NY Times claims that Dr. Li sounded an alarm in a context where the governments “initial handling” was slow, negligent, or reluctant. The facts belie this:

Dr. Li was not ahead of the government. As we noted above regarding the timeline, the government (Wuhan disease authorities) had already been informed, and they delivered their own public warning the same day as Dr Li’s sharing with his friends. There is little evidence to show that this was “forced” or “compelled” by the ophthalmologist’s message (as the NYTimes has claimed).
 

In fact, as is usually the case with public announcements, the health department had likely been discussing, drafting, and planning their statement prior to release on that day.
 

Note, also that this information was released before Dr. Li was called to the police for reprimand on 1/03 (in other words, the information was already out, and the reprimand can be interpreted as a critique of the speculation, as well as the how, why, and who of sharing than an attempt at erasure). Whether the reprimand was judiciously or skillfully delivered is another matter, but the facts remain that no coverup can be asserted from this incident.

10. “Yellow-Caking” the Experts, Again:

The NY Times implies that the Chinese government knew the outbreak was serious, but covered it up and delayed notification anyway to avoid political embarrassment. But again, it seems that the facts belie the assertion:
 

The WHO was also notified on 12/31 (the following day) of an “unknown virus” but did not consider it serious. The WHO did not suggest any quarantine or extreme public health measures. On 1/05, they advised against a travel restriction. 1/15, they again indicated there was no human-to-human transmission. 1/23, they indicated it was not a public health emergency. Only on 1/30 did they declare an emergency–fully 30 days after the so-called NYTimes-imputed “whistleblowing”.

11. Communist Catastrophe, really?:
 

The NYTimes, in particular, along with its ideological cousin the CFR, has been avidly red-baiting, pumping up the narrative of “whistleblower-cover-up” and “weak governance” endemic to “authoritarian-dictatorships-that-create-catastrophes-like-Chernobyl” trope. 
“Undemocratic Governance is dangerous for your health” claim the ideologues. But freedom-loving capitalist America easily outdoes any modern socialist state in its negligence and damage to public health and wellbeing. A casual point of comparison is the 2009 H1N1 A “San Diego” virus. This took the US To 6 months to declare an emergency and take active measures. Because of this inaction, 150k-575K people died all over the world. 80% were under 65 years old. Or last year’s flu (61,000 deaths in the US). Or this year’s flu (8-10,000 dead since October), 1400 dying in a single week. Oh, and let’s not forget the AIDS crisis. The opiate crisis. The lead crises. The homelessness crisis. The list is endless, repetitious, atrocious.

12. New Standards in Crisis Response:

Contrary to NYTimes claims of incompetence, “weakness”, and slowness, it seems that the Chinese have been setting new, groundbreaking standards and practices in outbreak detection and response. Examination of the facts shows that the Chinese were actually well prepared and well coordinated in their response–this has been acknowledged and commended by the WHO, and other public health agencies and experts of repute. They had a centralized database and control tower, which is why they were able to react so quickly to isolate, identify, sequence, and take public action on this. Let’s not forget, they also built two full-functioning, state-of-the-art isolation hospitals in a matter of days.

13. Monday Morning Schadenfreude:
 

The NYTimes has been willfully ignoring all of that is positive: skilled, coordinated mobilization; technical and medical tour-de-forces; mass acts of solidarity, generosity, and kindness across the country; and valiant, extraordinary medical and medical worker competence and heroism. Instead the Monday-morning epidemiological quarterbacking of the NY Times (and derivative media) has been savage and odious in exploiting every perceived mishap as a pretext to pile on and attack the Chinese people and the Chinese system: for example, the NY Times article on 2/01/20– insinuates cover-up, and “systemic weakness” (but it has to exclude the specific timeline* in order to make its case).Nicholas Kristof, taking a sabbatical from his paternalistic, prurient, misguided, and misleading reportage on child sex trafficking, is especially toxic in his offensive, red-baiting misrepresentation:

Xi used his tight rule to control information rather than to stop an epidemic”. “China makes poor decisions because it squelches independent voices…[it listens only to] flattery and optimism.. Xi is a preening dictator, some citizens are paying a price”.

In times of crisis, for western nations, the normal response is “We are Paris, NY, etc”. When it comes to Asia and China, the measured response is: “You deserve this because of your dirtiness, immorality, and bat-eating communist dictatorship”; “You would rather control your citizens than save lives”. This is often followed up by some variant of “nuke China”. Kristof and his ideological teammates can be isolated here, patients zero with their null set of facts, turning up the dials to 10 in this toxic wind tunnel of Sinophobia and hate speech.

14. Bashing China on “Free Speech”:

Running lapdog parallel to Kristof, taking the baton/bone from the NY Times, the Guardian also says “if China valued free speech, there would be no coronavirus”. This is the offensive viral meme cultured and replicated from the death Dr. Li. Of course, even cursory reflection might lead one to consider–in the capital of “Free Speech”–lead poisoning in Flint Michigan, the AIDS crisis, H1N1 A pandemic, mass shootings, not to mention Global Warming. It also bears emphasizing that the HK rioters–and their media backers–have a strong track record of opposing any “Free Speech” that doesn’t agree with theirs, by burning, beating, lynching, threatening, and doxxing everyone who disagrees with them.

Of course, fetishizing “Free speech” is not a panacea to all political or social ills. Certainly in a public health crisis, it cannot be assumed that unbridled “Free speech” is factually correct, or even beneficial (cf. “yelling fire in a crowded theater”). Underlying this fetishized concept is the liberal/anarcho-capitalist conceit that “in the marketplace of ideas” the correct one will naturally emerge to benefit all of society. Of course, history has shown, time and time again, that this is hardly the case. The “free speech” of the “anti-vax” movement is a case in point: it increases the chances that the US will be subject to a deadly pandemic. Various local epidemics, as well as the US (San Diego) H1N1 A Pandemic of 2009 with 280K dead (150-575K dead) signal to us this potential risk.

Another point of comparison: 11,435 people died in the 1st 2 weeks of August of 2003 in the free-speech capital of France. This was from heatstroke, dehydration and their sequelae–all easily preventable and predictable deaths for a government with a commitment to public health.


French capitalism/governance was not raked through the coals for this, nor considered to have lost fundamental legitimacy because of this tragedy–nor charged with covering it up or underreporting (although they did)–although to prevent these deaths required no special treatments, hospitals, protective equipment, medicine, research, or technology, It just required, some extra water, some common sense, and perhaps a few public shelters. And political will and care. Can you say “politique de deux poids, deux mesures”?

15. Amateurism Trumps Experts:

In order to bolster their trumped-up case, the NY Times, along with others (the rabid anti-China newssite DemocracyNow!, the CFR/FP) has trolled out a shadowy truck-load of ideological scientific amateurs to bolster and backstop their case. Of course, it’s convenient to overlook the fact that epidemiology is a complex science–and that predicting the course, virulence, and lethality of an outbreak is not unlike predicting the strength, path, and effects of a hurricane. Trotting out amateurs from the NYTimes to troll the epidemiologists and the WHO is like getting amateur bloggers to attack atmospheric scientists (for getting a detail of global warming wrong).

16. Was the Chinese response fast enough?

There’s a perpetual insinuation by the NY Times and its ideological allies that hide-bound, “authoritarian” bureaucracies cannot respond appropriately, quickly, or effectively to such outbreaks: “Weak, undemocratic governance is dangerous for your health”.

This question really begs others: fast relative to what? These responses were some of the fastest institutional response seen in modern epidemiological history.
 

Appropriate relative to what? This was the period of the Spring Festival, with the largest mass migration in history (billions of trips taken) with all the conflicting demands, uncertainties and strains that that entailed.

Effective relative to what? Modern responses under neoliberal order (MERS, Ebola, H1N1) have been an endless catalog of global catastrophes.

When the investigations are completed–and the Chinese government is ruthlessly investigating itself—and the history written, the record may judge that these were the best possible actions of an organized, conscientious government, trying to do the best under difficult, almost impossible circumstances. Were the responses perfect? Most certainly not. 
Were there gaps and lapsus? Absolutely, yes. Did the central and local government work hand-in-hand perfectly? Most certainly not. Was there discontent expressed on Weibo and other public fora? Most certainly. But given the extraordinary complexities and challenges of responding to the outbreak, its timing, its conflicting priorities, the size of the population, its stresses, strains and demands, we can be sure that this response will be written up in the Public Health text books, and when the final judgement call is made, it will be largely favorable to the Chinese government, bloviating ideologues and racists be damned.

*Brief Timeline of Outbreak and Responses:
12/8 First suspected case
12/8-12/18 investigations started by authorities of 7 cases of suspicious pneumonia; 2 linked to seafood market
12/21 First cluster of patients identified with “an unknown pneumonia” (reported 1/01)
12/25 Report of medical workers possibly infected
12/27 Dr. Zhang Jixian, the director of respiratory and critical care medicine at Hubei Provincial Hospital, notifies the hospital of an unusual cluster of viral cases; the hospital notifies the city’s’ disease control center.
12/29 Hubei Provincial hospital convenes and consults with a group of experts, and then notifies the regional CDC.
12/30 An Ophthalmologist , Dr Li Wenliang, in Wuhan, China, posts a warning about a cluster of patients diagnosed with SARS to colleagues. patients quarantined. (This doctor is censured by authorities for spreading unconfirmed rumors; This is the incident is characterized by the western media as “suppression”; however, it’s important to note 1) he’s not a virologist or epidemiologist, 2) he was not treating these patients 3) it wasn’t SARS 4) the nature of the disease was being investigated, but was still unknown at the time 5) most importantly, all of the patients were quarantined).
Notice issued and public health announcement made by Wuhan Municipal Health Committee of an unknown viral illness.
12/31 Chinese government informs WHO of existence of a new unknown virus; emergency symposium held on treatment; experts dispatched to investigate
1/1 Seafood market shut down as potential cause of outbreak. Chinese researchers at the CCDC publish an article on suspected outbreak.
1/2 41 patients confirmed with nCoV 2019
1/05 WHO advises against travel restrictions; no human to human transmission found at this time
1/7 Mayor’s Party meeting (didn’t mention virus, human transmission unclear at this time)
1/9 First casualty of outbreak (61 yr old with co-morbid symptoms–liver disease and stomach cancer)–death publicly reported on 1/11 after autopsy. To note–no one knew that the disease was fatal until this case, nearly one month after the initial case, and this person was already seriously sick.
1/10 First genetic blueprint sequenced and posted of nCoV 2019 (this is a medical accomplishment)
1/12 “Surge in chest illnesses” reported; Dr. Li Wenliang hospitalized.
1/13-1/15 Japan and Thailiand confirm first infections outside of China (based on publicly released blueprint)–transparency assisted identification
1/14 first suspected human to human transmission (wife of 1st casualty). This is the first time that it’s suspected that human transmission is involved.
1/15 WHO indicates no sustained human to human transmission
1/18 Community “potluck” in Baibuting, Wuhan with 40,000 attendees (severely criticized afterwards, however human-human transmission was still unclear at this point); 312 cases
1/20 Premier Li Keqiang urges decisive and effective actions
1/22 People in Wuhan told to wear masks
1/23 Quarantine announced of Wuhan; all outbound traffic frozen, WHO states this is not Public Health Emergency of Global concern
1/24 13 Hubei cities quarantined; 7 provinces declare public emergency; 26 dead, 830 infected
Lancet article published.

1/25 10 provinces declare public emergency; NY Events cancelled around China; 5 other cities quarantined in Hubei; 56M affected; Xi declares “grave situation”.
1/26 All wildlife trade banned; 56 dead 2000 cases

1/27 106 dead 4515 cases
1/30 WHO declares Global Emergency (170 dead, 7,711 cases)
2/01 1st death outside of China (Chinese man in Philippines); 304 dead, 14280 cases
2/02 Huoshenshan hospital, dedicated to treatment of nCov 2019 opened; new mask factory commences production in Beijing
2/03 361 dead, 17,205 cases (however infection rates outside of Wuhan are flattening or diminishing)
2/04 2nd death outside of China (Chinese man from Wuhan in Hong Kong). 427 dead, 20,000+infected.
2/07 Dr. Li Wenliang dies from 2019 nCoV.
2/10 910 dead, 40,000+infected.
==================================
Zie ook
'A Most Convenient Virus' (een ICH artikel, waarin de stelling dat dit virus uit een VS laboratorium komt)

'Coronavirus: Bruno Bruins (VVD 'minister' Volksgezondheid) slaat rood uit'

'Coronavirus hysterie: Corona vs. griep' 

Bernie Sanders wordt door communistenjagers gesaboteerd in zijn campagne

Op CounterPunch een artikel geschreven door Dave Lindorff over Bernie Sanders en wat je gerust een haat-campagne door de VS massamedia tegen hem kan noemen, een campagne die moet voorkomen dat Sanders in het Witte Huis belandt.... Bloomberg, één van de Democratische kandidaten, doet alleen mee om te voorkomen dat Sanders inderdaad in het genoemde huis kan plaatsnemen als president van de VS..... (van 2001 tot 2018 was Bloomberg zelfs Republikein en men stelt terecht dat hij terugkeerde in de Democratische Partij om te voorkomen dat Sanders de verkiezingen zou winnen....*)

De voorverkiezing in Iowa is volgens Lindorff een fiasco geworden door machinaties in de Democratische partij van figuren die Sanders niet lusten...... Iowa waar in feite is nog steeds niet bekend is wie echt heeft gewonnen, ook al weet men dat Sanders de meeste stemmen wist te verzamelen..... 

Lindorff betoogt terecht dat socialisme niet haaks staat op democratie, maar in feite 2 kanten van dezelfde munt zijn. Socialisme is niet hetzelfde als communisme 'zoals we hebben gezien in de Sovjet-Unie en China, zo concludeert Lindorff, waar ik aan toe zou willen voegen dat de situatie in de Sovjet-Unie niets met communisme van doen had, zoals de Chinese maatschappij niets met communisme te maken had en heeft. Beide landen werden (en wat China betreft wordt) geregeerd als een politiestaat ofwel dictatuur.......

De VS kan je in feite geen democratie meer noemen, de verschillende administraties die elkaar opvolgen bedienen vooral de super welgestelden en eventueel hun grote bedrijven...... Waar de reguliere (massa-) media in de VS Sanders afmaken als een communist die eenmaal aan de macht tegenstanders zal laten executeren, ofwel deze media maken van Sanders een 'communistisch monster' en dat middels leugens, verdraaiingen, fake news (nepnieuws), propaganda en vooral door haat en angst te zaaien (tegen/voor deze politicus).....

Lees het (soms ook humoristische) artikel van Lindorff en verbaas je, zoals ik, over de smerige machinaties in de VS, een 'land' dat zegt overal democratie te willen brengen (door landen plat te bombarderen) en zelf in feite al lang geen democratie meer is, niet alleen daar het grote geld uitmaakt wie de verkiezingen wint, maar ook door alle belemmeringen die arme en/of gekleurde burgers moet beletten te gaan stemmen........

Sanders wordt niet alleen in de VS pers onderuitgehaald, maar ook in de rest van het westen laten mediaorganen weten dat ze hem niet lusten, vanmorgen nog 'een mooi voorbeeld' in het megasuffe MAX Nieuwsweekend, waar leeghoofden Willem Post ('Amerika deskundige') en presentator de Bie hem wegzetten als een gevaarlijke halve zool; later wellicht meer over dit meer dan belachelijke gesprek op Radio1)

De wereld snakt naar rust en stabiliteit, zaken die je niet krijgt als Trump een tweede termijn mag dienen, hetzelfde is het geval met figuren als de Democraten Buttigieg en Bloomberg aan de macht....... Laten we hopen dat Sanders de voorverkiezingen en uiteindelijk het presidentschap van de VS wint, echter ik vrees dat dit niet zal gebeuren en het is zeker dat wanneer dit mislukt, de media, de grote bedrijven en de plutocraten (of oligarchen, wat je wilt) daar verantwoordelijk voor zijn......

February 13, 2020

The Red-Baiting of Bernie Sanders Has Begun and is Already Becoming Laughable



With Bernie Sanders now having won New Hampshire (and probably Iowa, where he won the popular vote) and confirmed his position as the frontrunner for president in the Democratic Party primaries (the New York Times’ poll guru Nate Silver is giving him a better than 40% chance of gaining enough delegates by the end of the primary season to win the nomination on the all-important first ballot at the National Convention in July), it’s becoming open season on socialism and its more anodyne relative democratic socialism.

A few days ago, right-wing columnist Marc Thiessen, writing in my local paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, mocked the catastrophic mess of the Iowa Democratic Caucus, where there is still, six days after the voting, no clear decision on who won, Sanders or Pete Buttigieg, blaming the fiasco on “the same brilliant minds who came up with Medicare-for-All and the ‘Green New Deal.’”  His conclusion, “The Democrats’ failure in Iowa stemmed from the same fundamental flaw that has caused socialism to fail (sic) wherever it is tried — the hubris of a tiny cadre whose grand visions and lack of humility far exceed their ability to deliver.”

Thiessen’s thesis fails on a number of factual grounds, of course. First of all, the failure of the Iowa Caucus was not the work of socialists at all or of the Sanders campaign. In fact the self-described social democrat in that race, Bernie Sanders, was the victim of the foul-up (if that is what it was and not sabotage). It was the work of neoliberal veterans of the 2016 Clinton campaign and the earlier Obama years who had teamed up to found a tech company, Shadow Inc., which got contracted by the neoliberal Democratic National Committee in secret to create a totally unneeded smartphone-based app for counting and tracking the votes in state caucuses and primaries. The app was so poorly designed, so untested, and was presented so late and with no training to Iowa caucus workers that it failed stunningly, even awarding delegates to the wrong candidates. This has led experts to conclude that it may be impossible to find out who really won the Iowa delegate count.  

What is clear and unarguable is that Sanders won the popular vote, both on the first round of voting, and on the second when supporters of losing candidates were allowed to shift their vote to their second-favorite top-tier candidate.

What Thiessen should have said was “The same brilliant minds in the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who stole the primary from Bernie Sanders in 2016 are trying to do it again.”

But he couldn’t say that because he was so eager to tar “socialism” with the blame. He even linked the alleged “socialist” fiasco to Soviet Russia, citing a Soviet-era joke about it taking 10 years to get delivery of a car after purchase.. Of course that would have ruined his plan to use the cock-up as an opening to besmirch “socialism.”

Thiessen’s not alone, though, in his willful ignorance about socialism — or in his willingness to lie about its reality in countries where its virtues have been practiced for over half a century.

For another example of how luridly ignorant and dishonest the media and the political opponents of socialist ideas are in this intellectual backwater of reaction we rather ironically call the United States, take the MSNBC talking-head host, Chris Matthews. Speaking on an MSNBC panel after last Thursday evening’s New Hampshire Democratic candidates’ debate, Matthews opined that if Sanders were to win the presidency, he would end up establishing a dictatorship and start having his opponents shot.

Even his co-panelists were aghast it the absurdity of this claim, but Matthews doubled down saying, “I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed,” adding, ”I don’t know who Bernie Sanders supports over these years, I don’t know what he means by socialism.”

Fellow MSNBC host Chris Hayes noted that Sanders frequently cites the decidedly peaceful democratic nation of Denmark, which boasts such socialist-inspired policies as government-run health insurance, free college, government-owned public transit and expansive paid maternity/paternity leave. To that Matthews replied combatively, “How do you know that? Has he said that?”

Well, yes, countless numbers of times, Chris, but maybe it doesn’t get reported on your network.

This is, I’m afraid, only the start. So propagandized has the US been by almost a century of lurid anti-Communist and anti-socialist red-baiting in our schools, our media and in the rhetoric of our political duopoly of pro-capitalist parties that all too many Americans unthinkingly accept and parrot this kind of ignorant nonsense. People don’t even realize that our own excellently run Veterans Health Care system is a purely socialist example of a UK-style National Health System (NHS), government-owned with doctors on salary, or that our Medicare program is a socialist-style, single-payer government-run health insurance program like Canada’s. You just have to be old or disabled to qualify for it.

Look at Trump’s vow in his State of the Union rant, to “never allow socialism” to “take over” the United States. Think I’m paranoid?  Look at how MSNBC commentator Jake Johnson (supposedly a political scientist professor!) freaked out when Bernie Sanders spokeswoman Nina Turner referred to Democratic Primary late buy-in candidate Mike Bloomberg, $60-billion former mayor of NY City and world’s 12th-richest person, an “oligarch.”  Johnson called her word choice “unfair and inaccurate” and added that the word had “implications in this country that I think are unfair and unreasonable.”

In other words, to people like Johnson, it’s countries like Russia, Ukraine, Byelorus and maybe China that have “oligarchs,”  but not the US, where we instead have “billionaires” whom we often refer to euphemistically as “philanthropists” because they donate a small portion of their year’s profits to charities of one kind or another.

Turner argues there is little or no difference. “Buying his way into the primaries” which Bloomburg, who is bypassing all the early contests while spending so far over $350 million on advertising and on hiring paid ‘influencers’ to promote his brand, is doing, she argued, makes him an “oligarch.”

This is the problem in a nutshell: The harsh reality is that the US today has among the most extreme wealth and income gaps in the world — indeed in the history of mankind. Our government — and this has been documented — is today almost totally responsive only to the needs and wishes of the wealthy and their corporations, whose lobbyists, it turns out, actually write most of the legislation that gets passed into law by Congress. The rich, who are for the most part beyond the law, pay little or nothing in taxes, shift their profits and wealth abroad to off-shore banking shelters with impunity, and legally bribe the members of Congress and the candidates for the presidency as well as their cabinet officers with what are called “campaign contributions,” free trips on corporate jets to exotic resorts, and promises of lucrative do-nothing positions on corporate boards after they leave their political jobs as errand-boys and girls for the rich and powerful.

So let’s take a look for the uneducated, ignorant and propagandized at what socialism and democratic socialism actually mean in the real world.

Socialism is for starters fundamentally democratic (democratic socialism is really a tautology). It advocates and celebrates the idea of people controlling their government by the electing of representatives who run the government, but also envisions extending that democratic control to the workplace, particularly in areas of economic activity where there is a paucity of competition (as in the energy industry, the arms industry, the power sector, utilities, health care the media and mass transit}. Sometimes that control comes in the form of government takeover of an industry, as for example of healthcare in the UK,  the railways in Germany or France, or the Post Office in the US. Sometimes it can come in the form of giving workers and even local communities — so-called stakeholders in the proper running of a company where they work or live — seats on the boards of enterprises. This is a requirement for large industrial firms in Germany and some other countries.

The US, since at least 1917 and the success of the Russian Revolution, has deliberately conflated socialism with Soviet Communism and later with Chinese Communism. (I should add that the US has also, all the way back to 1917, actively worked through economic strangulation and military action, to crush any attempts around the world to actually create a socialist society, from the Russian Revolution through election manipulation in France, Italy and Australia, to embargo and subversion in Cuba, coups in Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and elsewhere in Latin America, and elsewhere, and wars in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Congo and other countries. This sordid history makes the common argument spouted in the US that socialism “doesn’t work,” spurious in the extreme.)

Actually though, even Lenin himself readily admitted that Russia had not succeeded (and could not expect to succeed) in achieving the “socialism” described above, because of its primitive level of industrial and class development, and so it was limited to a kind of “state capitalism.”  He was correct, but the thought leaders in the US ruling class backed by the lickspittle “independent media” in this country have ignored that point and stick with the false claim that the Soviet Union and Maoist China, with all the horrors of dictatorship they imposed on their peoples, provide examples of the “evils of socialism.”  (Never mind that before the Russian and Chinese revolutions peasants were virtual or even legal slaves of the land-owners, the countries were a ruled by a Czar or a bunch of brutal warlords, respectively, and freedom didn’t exist for the vast majority of the people.)

Back in the early 1960s, as first President Kennedy and then Lyndon Johnson worked to establish what eventually became the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled, an actor named Ronald Reagan was hired by the American Medical Association to attack the idea in a series of paid public advertisements on radio and TV. As Reagan warned darkly, if “socialized medicine,” which is what he called government insurance for the elderly and disabled, were established by Congress, “behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until, one day as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism… and one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.”

Of course, by 1981 when Reagan was elected president, Medicare and Medicaid had been operating for 16 years. By that point, Americans loved both programs, which were significantly improving the health and longevity of the nation’s people even if they didn’t always realize they were benefitting from a program that is socialist in form and inspiration. 
Freedom in any event hadn’t declined at all. Indeed freedom from poverty was far greater because far fewer of the elderly were going bust paying for medical care, and far fewer younger adults were being bankrupted trying to care for their aging parents, grandparents and disabled family members.

Medicare, Medicaid, free public college, subsidized transit and the like are not, in themselves, socialism, but they are socialist ideas, as are electric power cooperatives and municipally owned water systems. Bernie Sanders’ idea of expanding and improving Medicare into a program of Medicare for All so that nobody (and nobody’s employer) needs to pay thousands of dollars annually for individual medical insurance or tens of thousands of dollars for family medical insurance and related health care costs. Sanders favors free public college because a nation’s young people are all of our responsibility. If they succeed, we all succeed as a nation. And they cannot succeed if they graduate with a degree and $50-100,000 in student loans, some bearing interest as high as 9%.

Socialism has nothing to do with freedom and democracy or a lack of it and everything to do with building a caring society that seeks to raise everyone and give everyone the opportunity to work and succeed in that society. Socialism is not scary, it’s not Communism and it’s not dictatorship, whatever the wack-jobs like Jake Johnson, Chris Matthews of MSNBC or Sanders’ latest red-baiting attacker, Joe Biden, may say.

Bernie got it right when he told Pete Buttigieg, who has the financial backing of 40 billionaires, “You cannot take support to billionaires and then say you’re going to be for the people.”

For me, the simple way to look at it is this:  socialism is the idea that democracy should be expanded beyond the political sphere to include the economic sphere. It takes the freedom which today exists largely only in the home and on one’s front yard but that gets chipped away elsewhere and doesn’t even exist inside the workplace, and extends it to the workplace and beyond. Socialism’s premise is that government and society at large have a responsibility for the welfare of a country’s most vulnerable, and that the aggregation of vast wealth and the existence of grinding poverty are antithetical to a good society.  Capitalism’s premise, in contrast, is that the pursuit of wealth in itself is a positive thing, and that the achieving of wealth is prima face evidence of the virtue of the person who has it, while poverty is the deserved result of a person’s presumed lack of industry.

More articles by:Dave Lindorff

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
===============================
* Het is voor velen in de VS wel duidelijk dat wanneer hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton niet misdadig vals had gespeeld tijdens de democratische voorverkiezingen, ze deze had verloren en de kans groot was geweest dat Sanders tot president was verkozen.......
 
Zie ook:
'Robert Epstein: Google en Facebook corrumperen de politiek en manipuleren de presidentsverkiezingen

'Joe Biden met dubbel verlies: hij dreigde met een rechtszaak om zo de resultaten van de voorverkiezingen in Iowa tegen te houden van publicatie'

'Democratische voorverkiezingen presidentschap Iowa: de soap is begonnen, nu is het nog wachten op de beschuldiging van 'Russische inmenging''

'Facebook staat valse informatie toe tijdens de (voor-) verkiezingen van het presidentschap in de VS'

'Max Boot, promotor van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak is pissig dat Bernie Sanders kritiek levert op die oorlog

'VS burgers zijn gewaarschuwd: Rusland kan hun hersenen hacken en laten geloven dat Joe Biden niet geschikt is als president'

'Hillary Clinton: Bernie Sanders is a 'Russian Asset''

'Nieuwe Russische hack samenzweringstheorie t.a.v. Joe Biden 'schokt' VS Democraten'

'VS presidentschap wordt gekocht met 100 dollar per uitgebrachte stem'

'Hillary Clinton manipuleert democratische voorverkiezingen'

'Michael Bloombergs deelname aan de verkiezingen laten nog eens zien hoe ondemocratisch de VS presidentsverkiezingen zijn'

'Media en politiek bepalen waar wel en niet over gesproken wordt >> over manipulatie en desinformatie gesproken'

'Niet Rusland maar Trump beïnvloedt nu al de verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië'

'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grilt Zuckerberg over misleidende advertenties op Facebook: liegen in verkiezingstijd is toegestaan'

'Tulsi Gabbard (Democratische presidentskandidaat) en de gestoken verkiezingen'

'Ollongren (D66 minister) manipuleerde bevolking met beschuldiging Russische manipulatie door desinformatie en nepnieuws' (zie ook de links in dat bericht naar meer berichten over Ollongren en haar leugens)

zaterdag 15 februari 2020

Temperatuur Zuidpool voor het eerst in de 'geschiedenis' 20 graden C. boven nul

Onlangs meldde ik al dat Argentinië in haar Antarctisch gebied een temperatuur van 18 graden Celsius boven nul heeft gemeten*, nu melden o.a. The Guardian en de BBC World Service dat de temperatuur op Antarctica, voor het eerst in de geschiedenis dat de temperatuur daar wordt gemeten, is gestegen tot 20 graden Celsius........

Uiteraard is deze belachelijk hoge temperatuur het gevolg van de klimaatverandering en is tegelijk maar één van de feiten die aangeven dat we geen tijd hebben tot 2030 of 2050 voor we werkelijk iets doen om de klimaatverandering nog enigszins af te remmen!

Temperaturen als 20 graden boven nul aan de polen zorgen ervoor dat de opwarming steeds verder oploopt, immers veel ijs en sneeuw smelt als gevolg van de hoge temperatuur en waar geen ijs en sneeuw zijn verdwenen, wordt de zon niet meer weerkaatst en zal zee, grond of rots de warmte opnemen. Het gevolg van het voorgaande is dat de temperatuur nog verder oploopt, dit heeft weer tot effect dat er nog meer ijs en sneeuw zal afsmelten, enz. enz. Men noemt het voorgaande een cumulatief effect en dit effect vindt ook plaats in andere zaken die de klimaatverandering doen versnellen...... 

Neem de permafrost die in noordelijke streken als Siberië en Alaska steeds verder ontdooit, daarbij komen grote hoeveelheden methaangas vrij (één van de sterkste broeikasgassen op aarde), waardoor de wereldtemperatuur nog verder omhoog wordt gejaagd, wat vervolgens leidt tot nog verdere ontdooiing van de permafrost, enz. enz........ 

Moet je nagaan, dit alles terwijl ik het nog niet over de vele bosbranden over de wereld heb geschreven, of over de enorme veestapel van 500 milljoen dieren in ons land, die zorgt voor een zo grote uitstoot van methaangas, dat ons kleine Nederland een onevenredig grote bijdrage levert aan de klimaatverandering.......

Toevallig werd afgelopen week bekend gemaakt dat een enorm grote ijsberg van Antarctica is afgebroken, dit is bepaald niet op zichzelf sttaand en zal de komende jaren steeds vaker gebeuren..... De vrijgekomen plek neemt vervolgens de warmte van dee zon op die niet meer wordt weerkaatst...... Dit nog naast het feit dat het afsmelten van ijs de zeespiegel doet stijgen......

Het hieronder opgenomen artikel nam ik over van DeMorgen, waar nog 3 artikelen over de opwarming zijn te vinden, zoals die over het dreigende afbreken van een ijsberg op Antarctica (die intussen is afgebroken, zoals je kon lezen) en een ander artikel over gletsjers op de Himalaya en Antarctica die in snel tempo afsmelten (zoals je begrijpt smelten de gletsjers in het Himalaya gebied sneller dan die op Antarctica), zie voor deze berichten de links onder het hieronder opgenomen artikel van DeMorgen.

Voor het eerst warmer dan 20 graden op Zuidpool

Beeld Thinkstock
Voor het eerst in de geschiedenis is op de Zuidpool een temperatuur van boven de 20 graden gemeten. Dat meldt de Britse krant The Guardian.

Redactie en Belga13 februari 2020, 16:28


Zondag bereikten de thermometers van Braziliaanse wetenschappers op Seymour Island in het zuidpoolgebied de 20,75 graden. Dat is bijna een graad hoger dan het vorige record van 19,8 graden, dat op Signy Isand werd gemeten in 1982.

Dit nieuwste record volgt op een ander temperatuurrecord dat een Argentijns onderzoeksstation afgelopen vrijdag mat op Argentijns Antarctica. Met 18,3 graden was het nog nooit zo warm in dat gebied.

De Wereld Meteorologische Organisatie (WMO) moet de metingen nog officieel bevestigen, maar ze passen in een bredere trend op het schiereiland en de nabijgelegen eilanden. Daar werd het sinds 1850 bijna 3 graden warmer, een van de snelste temperatuurstijgingen op aarde.

Lees ook:
Strijd om de Zuidpool barst los: waarom Rusland, VS, China en Noorwegen op Antarctica azen

Grote ijsberg Antarctica staat op afbreken

Kwart van gletsjers op West-Antarctica is onstabiel
=====================================
* Zie: 'Argentijns antarctisch gebied: 18 graden Celsius boven nul........'

Zie ook:
'Het IEA is verworden tot een lobbyorganisatie voor de oliemaatschappijen

'BP fakkelt grote hoeveelheid gas af in Gelsenkirchen: 'technische storing''

'Halve graad opwarming van de aarde zal 150 miljoen mensen het leven kosten......'

'Rutte 3 heeft gelogen over subsidies: jaarlijks 2,5 miljard euro belastinggeld naar olie, kolen en gas'

'ING blij met nieuwe oliewinning voor de kust van Guyana, 'uiterst duurzaam...'' 

'Het 'groenwassen' van de scheepvaart, of hoe autoriteiten doorgaan met het verkankeren van de aarde'

'De wereld van astroturf: professionele leugenaars die de belangen van grote vervuilers e.d. promoten' 

'Greenpeace stelt dat de klimaatverandering is te stoppen ha! ha! ha! ha!

'Australische bosbranden: 500 miljoen dieren dood en een rookpluim die groter is dan Europa' Intussen is het aantal dieren dat omkwam bij de bosbranden opgelopen tot boven de `1 miljard... (voor meer berichten over de bosbranden in Australië, zie de links in dat bericht)

'Klimaattop Madrid: de grote vervuilers hebben veel te veel invloed'

'Milieugroepen buitengesloten van klimaattop Madrid'

'Klimaattop Madrid bij voorbaat mislukt'

'Boris Johnson (Britse premier) liegt keihard dat de branden in Amazonegebied hem aan het hart gaan'

'Bolsonaro 8 maanden president: nu al 84% meer bosbranden in het Amazonewoud......'

'Amazonegebied in brand, Black Rock verdient daar vele miljoenen mee

'Het beschermen van de planeet is verworden tot een misdaad, veelal bestraft met moord'

''Methaangasboer' ontsnappend uit de Oost-Arctische Plaat kan de wereld zoals wij die kennen vernietigen'

'Niet eerder getoonde satellietfoto's laten zien dat grote delen van Arctisch gebied in brand staan >> klimaatkantelpunt gepasseerd'

'Grote Arctische gebieden in Siberië, Groenland, Canada en Alaska branden: klimaatkantelpunt nadert met rasse schreden'

'Aantal CO2 deeltjes in de atmosfeer op voor de mens nooit eerder vertoond hoog niveau'


'Cruiseschip Zuiderdam urenlang tegengehouden van afvaren door milieuactivisten'

'Australië geeft toestemming tot uitbaten enorm grote kolenmijn' (zie ook de links in dat bericht over het Grote Barrièrerif)

'Klimaatverandering: inwoners Bratsk (Siberië) stikken in de rook van bosbranden.......'

'Apocalyptisch smeltproces in (ant)arctisch gebied, na alweer een jaar dat tot de 3 warmste zal worden gerekend.......'

'Longartsen tegen gebruik van dieselbrandstof'

'130 km/u. brengt geen verkorting van de reistijd, maar wel extra vervuiling.....'

'Luchtvervuiling veroorzaakt naast long- en luchtwegklachten, ook psychische aandoeningen bij kinderen'

'Hartklachten ook door lage niveau's van luchtvervuiling.....'

'Nederlandse lucht nog vuiler dan eerder gedacht.....'


'Nederlander leeft 13 maanden korter door luchtvervuiling, dat zijn meer dan 260.000 mensenlevens' (lullig genoeg overlijden er werkelijk mensen vele jaren eerder doordat zij bijvoorbeeld longkanker hebben opgelopen door auto-uitstoot en dan gaat het om mensen die nooit gerookt hebben, ofwel ook onder de rokers kunnen er longkankers zijn ontstaan door de uitlaatgassen van auto's.....)

Nog wat berichten over het meer dan belachelijke Nederlandse klimaatakkoord:
'Klimaatakkoord: groei Schiphol plus een biomassacentrale en de Binnenhof bbq met daartoe behorende corruptie'

'Klimaatakkoord: nogmaals krijgt de bevolking een reuzenoor aangenaaid'

'Land- en tuinbouw krijgen subsidie voor energietransitie, waar de burgers dubbel moeten betalen.......'

'Klimaatakkoord en kilometerheffing: één-tweetje ANWB en Rutte 3'

''Klimaatakkoord', niet de grote vervuilers maar gezinnen betalen de energietransitie'

'Klimaatakkoord en Rutte's belofte over de CO2 heffing >> Kees Boonman geeft toe veel te verzinnen'

'Klimaatakkoord doorrekening uh verrekening laat zien dat de doelen niet gehaald zullen worden >> het grote belazeren'

'Jan Kees Emmer (Telegraaf): Amsterdam emissieloos is voor 'milieudrammers''

'New York University: binnen afzienbare tijd zullen planten en bomen minder CO2 kunnen opnemen vanwege de droogte'

''Klimaatakkoord' >> Stientje van Veldhoven (D66 staatssecretaris) lult zich weer eens 'groen' en verdedigt het niet extra belasten van benzine auto's......'

En nog een paar berichten over het totaal achterhaalde energieakkoord:
'Joris Wijnhoven Greenpeace: "energieakkoord was 90% te weinig, maar de 10% die overbleef, daar gaat het om!!!"'

'Kamp torpedeert energieakkoord'

'Kamp en de vrijstelling van kolenbelasting'

Met dank aan Gertjan van Beijnum, die een Facebook post over dit onderwerp plaatste

Beste bezoeker, dit was het voor vandaag, morgen meer berichten. Maak er als het enigszins mogelijk is een mooie dag van. (een dag waarop de temperatuur alweer te hoog is voor de tijd van het jaar....)